Stanley Lord guilty as charged

Jim Currie

Member
When you think about it, if Californian could see a vessel 5 miles away and this vessel wasn't Titanic then why did they bother trying to Morse it?

If the rockets being fired, which according to Stone "appeared to come a good distance beyond" weren't coming from this mystery ship then Californian were clearly wasting their time contacting the wrong ship anyway.

If this mystery vessel was also firing rockets then how come no one on the Titanic mentions seeing them?

Finally, if the Titanic was looking at a vessel 4 to 7 Miles away and the Californian was looking at a vessel 5 miles away, and they were both looking at the same vessel then that would make the Californian between 9 and 12 miles from the Titanic and both within visual range of each other as well. That is of course unless by complete fluke, all three ships were on an exact line.
Hello Rob. Hope you are well.

In fact, they began using the morse lamp before any vessel stopped. Groves was ordered to do so by Lord.
The use of the morse lamp on a merchant ship was very frequent..right up until the advent of VHF in the late 60s..70s. the lamp was ship- specific...wireless was only so if they used a particular call sign.

The use of the lamp by Stone and Gibson was by order of the Master. Obviously, the nearby vessel was closer to the source of the signals. It is therefore reasonable to assume that since she was, her Master's curiosity would also be aroused by them and might know more about the situation. You will note that Groves was confused concerning the source of
but one of these signals.

As with the fact that Californian was not seen from Titanic before impact, your point concerning what was seen (or not seen) from Titanic concerning rockets is significant.

If the nearby vessel was as, as Lord claimed, 4 miles from Californian and if his declared stopped position was correct, then that nearby vessel was 18 miles from the sinking Titanic and would also have been invisible to observers on board the latter. At best, it was no nearer than about 17 miles.

t would have been a shear fluke if there had not been several vessels in the immediate area , all heading westward.. After all, the location was mere 133 miles from The Corner, the point where very many vessel converged on before heading westward, and there was a lot of traffic in the area at the time....much of which would not be equipped with wireless. In fact, if I remember correctly, the MAIB Report drew attention to this.
The following rough sketch is how I see h situation:
relative positions.jpg

Ships stopped by the barrier would be on a sight line. Earlier that morning, the SS Trautenfels was stopped by exactly the same barrier 2 or 3 miles to the SSE from where we see the Californian stopped.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Interesting points you brought up. Could have been this thread or another but I brought up if a mystery ship was firing rockets then she wasn't trying to hide and would have come foward later saying they did fire rockets. Thats one of the reasons I don't buy any mystery ship firing rockets that night. Thats why I still maintain if anyone saw rockets it was from Titanic.
Hello Steven

I don't think anyone believes that the rockets seen from Californian were from any vessel other than Titanic. However, I do believe that Stone was deceived and somewhat confused by the situation.
Back then, in an era when the young were "seen and not heard"- I often wonder how we, as individuals would have reacted under the relentless, intense barrage of questions which Stone - a young, unsophisticated sailorman - was subjected to
 
Hello Steven

I don't think anyone believes that the rockets seen from Californian were from any vessel other than Titanic. However, I do believe that Stone was deceived and somewhat confused by the situation.
Back then, in an era when the young were "seen and not heard"- I often wonder how we, as individuals would have reacted under the relentless, intense barrage of questions which Stone - a young, unsophisticated sailorman - was subjected to
I don't believe anyone here actually believes that either. But I have see that brought up before and not just on E.T. Logically it just doesn't make sense. As for Stone I totally get what your saying. I could try to explain it more but would probably muff it up. I'll just say that one of the unpleasant duties I had was taking sailors to their court-martials and sitting thru them. It was an eye-opener.
 

Arun Vajpey

Member
Perhaps, but for my part I have run out of questions. The outside wall of our apartment block has been freshly painted. I think I'll go out and watch it dry.
 

Jim Currie

Member
As you probably gather, I am referring to the questions in my post #3688.

i hope your apartment is at least furnished. My worldly goods are still in a sea container somewhere. At present, I sleep and sit on charity and have done so for the past 4 weeks. Just thought I'd share that with you
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Arun Vajpey

Member
Must be tough for an err...senior senior citizen like you. You have my sympathies.

Yes, our current apartment is well furnished but a lot of our worldly goods including almost all of my Titanic books are sitting in a storage warehouse in London waiting to be shipped to our second apartment (the winter home) in India. Costing us £612 per month :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Well done , Rob!

I have been reluctant to comment on Jim's recent posts, but you will find much of interest in Sam's new book that for one debunks Jim's recent posting that there is "no" evidence that Titanic ended up heading Northwards after the ice berg collision. Sam also considers, inter alia, the hypothesis Jim propounds, in his (Sam's) new book that Titanic ended up westwards.

Of late, we have considered much else of relevance thanks to Arun's medical expertise that is fundamental to issues that remain partly unresolved.

Cheers,

Julian
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Jim Currie

Member
Well done , Rob!

I have been reluctant to comment on Jim's recent posts, but you will find much of interest in Sam's new book that for one debunks Jim's recent posting that there is "no" evidence that Titanic ended up heading Northwards after the ice berg collision. Sam also considers, inter alia, the hypothesis Jim propounds, in his (Sam's) new book that Titanic ended up westwards.

Of late, we have considered much else of relevance thanks to Arun's medical expertise that is fundamental to issues that remain partly unresolved.

Cheers,

Julian
Come off it, Julian! .Sam's a big boy and perfectly able to defend himself. What commission are you and Arun on?

I respect you and Arun for your professional expertise and would not presume to challenge any profession - specific statement you or he made, unless I had equally professional back up to do so. Hopefully, you two will accord me the same respect.
With the foregoing in mind, I have often consulted my contacts in the Marine profession, specifically, learned members of the Naval Architect and Marine Engineering professions. I challenge you, Arun and Sam to do the same. Simply present such "experts" with the known technical information regarding helm and engine orders given during the first 6 seconds from impact.. I think you will be surprised.

As you know, an hypothesis is defined as " an idea or explanation for something that may be true but has not yet been completely proved: " I don't have an "idea", I simply apply the evidence to my professional knowledge and go with what it tells me. Nor do I offer evidence which cannot be verified by an independent, suitably qualified source. Specifically - I do not have an idea then attempt to make the evidence fit that idea.
I suggest to you and everyone else who might be interested that a simple answer as to how it was possible for all these folks on Titanic and in boats to see a red light and then a single white light on a fourteen miles away Californian before 1-30 am (Sam time - Titanic) will serve to settle this argument once and for all.
Incidentally, the evidence of Californian's Apprentice Gibson regarding rocket sightings is crucial to the answer but not exclusively so.

I cannot vouch for other members, but I suspect that Sam's reluctance to publicly answer my questions regarding the red light sightings is simply clever bait to sell his book.
If not, then it means that he cannot stretch his thought process to come up with a feasible explanation.
There is of course, the possibility that he messed with the evidence of young Gibson. But as I pointed out, Gibson's evidence is not the only governing bit of evidence.

This forum is the only "bait" i am tempted by, Julian.;)

Stay safe.
 

Bob Read

Active Member
Come off it, Julian! .Sam's a big boy and perfectly able to defend himself. What commission are you and Arun on?

I respect you and Arun for your professional expertise and would not presume to challenge any profession - specific statement you or he made, unless I had equally professional back up to do so. Hopefully, you two will accord me the same respect.
With the foregoing in mind, I have often consulted my contacts in the Marine profession, specifically, learned members of the Naval Architect and Marine Engineering professions. I challenge you, Arun and Sam to do the same. Simply present such "experts" with the known technical information regarding helm and engine orders given during the first 6 seconds from impact.. I think you will be surprised.

As you know, an hypothesis is defined as " an idea or explanation for something that may be true but has not yet been completely proved: " I don't have an "idea", I simply apply the evidence to my professional knowledge and go with what it tells me. Nor do I offer evidence which cannot be verified by an independent, suitably qualified source. Specifically - I do not have an idea then attempt to make the evidence fit that idea.
I suggest to you and everyone else who might be interested that a simple answer as to how it was possible for all these folks on Titanic and in boats to see a red light and then a single white light on a fourteen miles away Californian before 1-30 am (Sam time - Titanic) will serve to settle this argument once and for all.
Incidentally, the evidence of Californian's Apprentice Gibson regarding rocket sightings is crucial to the answer but not exclusively so.

I cannot vouch for other members, but I suspect that Sam's reluctance to publicly answer my questions regarding the red light sightings is simply clever bait to sell his book.
If not, then it means that he cannot stretch his thought process to come up with a feasible explanation.
There is of course, the possibility that he messed with the evidence of young Gibson. But as I pointed out, Gibson's evidence is not the only governing bit of evidence.

This forum is the only "bait" i am tempted by, Julian.;)

Stay safe.

Jim: For the life of me I don’t understand why the moderators put up with your slander of Sam Halpern. Don’t agree with him? Fine. But when you speculate on his motives for not answering you and all of them are foul, that’s where you cross a line that I wish the moderators would deal with when your ad hominems fly thick and fast. We can only hope they’ll assert themselves.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Jim: For the life of me I don’t understand why the moderators put up with your slander of Sam Halpern. Don’t agree with him? Fine. But when you speculate on his motives for not answering you and all of them are foul, that’s where you cross a line that I wish the moderators would deal with when your ad hominems fly thick and fast. We can only hope they’ll assert themselves.
Slander? That is a very strong word, Bob .
What is slanderous about expressing an opinion as to why someone whether it be Sam. you. or anyone else.. declines to publicly answer a series of simple questions?
 

Jim Currie

Member
Jim: Because you only assign the basest of possible motives to Sam’s failure to answer.
What other possible reasons might you suggest. Bob? Forgive me for saying so, but getting a simple answer to the simple questions I ask is like... dare I say it? like pulling teeth. If you ask me a question, I answer courteously and to the best of my ability. If I don't have an answer, I will say so. I most certainly will not dismiss you as having something better to do. If you do not accept my answer, I would expect you to explain why.
 
Top